You know as well as anyone that the Governor's move
to "freeze" any process for those marriage certificates already issued
is unconstitutional.The state of Utah issued them pursuant a federal
ruling that they are constitutional. While many disagree with either the outcome
or reasoning of that Judge's opinion...it remains the law of our district
until the 10th Circuit or Supreme Court say otherwise.

You, as a
member of the bar, and the foremost representative of law in the state, simply
must follow your duty to law and instruct the governor that those licenses
already issued are due the full faith and credit of all state and federal
benefits and rights of a marriage.

I would be disappointed if
somebody didn't step in and correct the governor on this. It is unlawful
conduct by the state.

@David: I do not question your belief in God. You should not question mine.

Suffice it to say that Quakers have a much different theology than you
do. I can't get too deep in the weeds without making the moderators
uncomfortable, but you're free to do a little research on the web if
you're interested.

There is only one God, though, so no matter
how we approach the subject, we should agree that we're agreed on that, at
least.

As for what God condones, I think Quakers at least think
we're in tune with that. As a non-hierarchical denomination, we're
rather "hands on" with the Lord, or in our language, we live "in the
Light."

Our beautiful and mature children, high school seniors,
met in retreat in 2005 at Powell House and developed a wonderful Minute on the
subject of sexual relations and sexuality. It includes, "Sexuality is an
outward expression of love that comes from deep within. It includes deep
connections that we have with each other filled with love, trust, respect and
the deepest sense of the Divine." I encourage you to look up the rest.
(Just google the quote.)

@Cats: Perhaps non-Utahns are interested in this case because Utah will be
responsible for making marriage equality the law of the land.

Why?
Because the state wants to push this issue to SCOTUS, which will only prove to
be their complete undoing. It virtually guarantees the upholding of the Shelby
ruling, insofar as the Shelby ruling is based upon ironclad Windsor logic, and
not emotional dogma. This case is about constitutional law only, it has nothing
to do with procreation, 'family unit', 'tradition', or any
other dogmatic deflection that doesn't even begin to pass the rational
basis test.

It is little wonder the Utah AG is having trouble
finding an outside state law firm to take on this case... no one want to be
associated with an non-winnable court case of such far-reaching importance.

My prediction: the 10th Appeals Court will uphold the Shelby ruling, and
when Utah appeals to SCOTUS, they won't hear the case, and that will be
that. Then states under the 10th District (like Kansas and Oklahoma!) are
immediately subject to the same ruling.

"The Deseret News does do a good job of noting Utah voters’ strong
support for civil unions, pointing out that the BYU poll suggests Utah voters
support civil unions in greater numbers than the general population does. That
being the case, it simply doesn’t make sense to frame Utah as
anti-equality, claiming that “72 percent of Utah voters oppose gay
marriage.” Reporting on poll questions in this way is misleading, and
obscures the push toward greater support for the LGBT community —
including within conservative communities such as BYU — that is evident
across the United States." New Poll Misrepresents Attitudes On Gay Marriage
In Utah think progress

LDS belief is that you must be married in the temple for God to acknowledge this
and to have an eternal marriage. So what do you care if people are married
outside of the temple? Your faith basically nullifies 99% of marriages on this
planet after death anyways. I'm keenly aware of this since I won't be
attending my sisters actually wedding inside the temple. Only the reception
afterwards.

Shorter Pagan: "Don't bring obvious historical facts into this
discussion!" (she cannot respond to them with anything other than circular
reasoning and begging the question).

It's not a "lie"
that the institution of marriage is millennia old; the institution predates
recorded history. And Pagan's argument that Utah's polygamous past
negates the requirement of gender complementarianism essential to marriage is a
total non-sequitur. Whether it's Man A with Woman A, Man B with Woman B,
Man C with Woman C, etc., or Man A with Woman A, Man A with Woman B, Man A with
Woman C, etc., we're still talking about a man and a woman.

A
side note: It is, however, a lie to say that "traditionally women were
considered property in marriage." In reality, marriage was seen as the
transfer of a person--not "property"--from her father's household
to her husband's household, making her husband responsible for her care and
protection. It's a tradition most still follow in form (if not in
substance) today as they leave their father's last name and take their
husband's when they get married.

In view of the fact that other states and now the federal government recognize
those marriages, it is only fair to make sure the paperwork is completed. A
similar ruling was made in California. Its the right thing to do.

Schnee: Actually, Californians got involved with Prop 8. There are a lot of
California Mormons. They, along with many others, got involved with Prop 8
which they had a perfect right to do. Of course, one gay judge overturned the
will of the people in that case, too.

I just find it interesting
that so many out-of-state posters are so emotionally involved with Utah and what
goes on here. One might almost get the impression that they have been assigned.
Gosh, that couldn't happen could it?

The competence of the attorney general is suspect.His reasoning seems to
be: Utah's county clerks should recognize that those unions took place.
And other states should recognize those as valid. But the rest of Utah should
not.A more rational, consistent decision would have been to say to
everyone: we don't know the status of these ceremonies is until the
Supreme Court rules. Therefore no one should do anything but root for their
favorite appeal court lawyers.

@Henelson "The Declaration of Independence..."that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Words written by Thomas Jefferson, who enjoyed a sexual relationship outside
of marriage with a teen-age slave. Perhaps not surprisingly, he did not write
"pursuit of Money" or "pursuit of Religion." If we could all
remember that the nation's founders endorsed Happiness, maybe we could
agree to let others find their own way to Happiness, as we find ours.

DavidEvery single individual in America has the exact same, equal
opportunity to marry someone under the law…in a relationship comprised of
a man and a woman.KJKEvery single individual in 1950s Mississippi
had the exact same, equal opportunity to marry someone under the law…in a
relationship comprised of a man and a woman of the same race. Subjective
restrictions have no place in limiting rights per ancient and modern
scripture.

TekakaromatagiIf marriage is not about childbirth,
then why are brother-sister marriages banned? … If marriage is only to
celebrate an important commitment made between two people, why don't we
give tax breaks to roommates? Or if someone moves in with his aunt? Or his best
friend from high school? Or her brother after her divorce?KJKIt's one thing to not allow a marriage that would likely produce kids
that would burden society (though we allow people with congenital diseases to
marry), but another to disallow one that couldn't, otherwise seniors
couldn't remarry. We don’t give tax breaks because the pairings you
list have no legal commitment to each other. Legal commitments benefit society.
Banning SSM therefore objectively hurts society.

Well, unlike our President who chooses to selectively enforce the laws of our
country based on his whim, this individual appears to understand the rule of
law.

Can't say I agree with what happened in the first place
regarding the original ruling but at least he is clearly not playing agenda
politics unlike our pathetic excuse for a President and his slimy AG.

"I find it very interesting that it seems most of the
pro-gay marriage posters on these articles are from out of state. Why are they
so concerned about what goes on in Utah since they don't live here?
Interesting!"

Because equality is guaranteed under the
constitution to ALL Americans. Even if they live in Utah. Very interesting
indeed!!!

@MeckofahessHere are my responses:1.Ridiculed? No. It's free
speech. Jailed? Yes…but that isn’t happening.2.No, because
they voluntarily opened a business in a jurisdiction that protects gays. They
agreed to obey the law as a condition of getting a business license. 3.The
Catholic orphanage closed because it was taking government money and the
government required them to treat all equally. They CHOSE to close rather than
obey the law.4.This issue affects far more than SSM. Many private and
public organizations forbid members/employees from expressing controversial
opinions in public fora. The courts are filled with such cases by people who
were fired for it. 5.Obviously and the group should be prosecuted.6.Christians need to know the law and should feel free to express and defend
themselves but must be willing to risk the consequences of their choices. If
they choose silence rather than face the legal consequences of their legal
actions, that is their choice. I choose not to tell my wife that her cooking
stinks rather than face the consequences of doing so. Am I being persecuted?7.No, because all people are free to express their opinions.